Author Topic: Operation Downfall (Read 4070 times)

ROC · « **Reply #30 on:** July 22, 2006, 08:34:29 PM »

Read up on the rules and the time the frame starts.

Get in before hand. People plan for these things weeks in advance, walking on last minute is hard enough, but after it's started just doesn't work.

It would be good to have you in one, but you simply have to get there on time.

culero · « **Reply #31 on:** July 24, 2006, 07:53:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ROC
snip
People plan for these things weeks in advance

They like to, when given that opportunity.

culero

ROC · « **Reply #32 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:17:38 AM »

I'd take that up with your CO then Culero.

Simaril · « **Reply #33 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:54:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ROC
I'd take that up with your CO then Culero.

ROC, with all due respect, that's not fair.

The rules are a contract about how the game is played, and "if its not on paper it didnt happen" is the way contracts work. Every hear about the midget they put up to bat in 1940's? By the rules, his strike zone was teenie tiny -- adn so he got lots of walks. It was legal under the rules, and nothing could be done about until the written rules were changed.

The scenario rules as written do not say that every carrier had to be staffed -- and though you think they implied it, that is NOT the same thing when it comes to rules. Yet, unlike the major leaguers in the 40's. you enforced what you meant rather than what you said, and that required Filth to completely redo his plan just days before the start.

It wasnt his fault, he didnt misread anything, and he did enormous preparation -- that went out the window when you enforced unwritten rules on one side.

AND

I am honestly appalled that with all the controversy about the scenario's balance, the very first thing you say on these forums is to reflect blame on Filth.

No other discussion, no response to legitimate issues, even from disinterested parties lilke WIdewing.

I had expected a classier response.

Fencer51 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:02:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ROC
I'd take that up with your CO then Culero.

Oh well said, and so bravely done as well, since you know Filth quit last night.

And your response here and your not addressing the discussions going on in the other forums pretty much sums up the lack of CM leadership of this event.

ROC · « **Reply #35 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:16:00 AM »

This is where you guys went wrong, you are looking for a fight where one doesn't exist.

I didn't reflect blame on filth.

I said Take it up with your CO.

I work with the COs, they are on the design team.

I'm frankly getting tired of the pot shots, Take it up with your CO, that's who I work with.

Culero posted a jab, I told him how to address it. Same here, take it up with your CO.

Fencer, you posted in another thread quoting the rules, and said the US Team shall use N/7. Problem is, the rules didn't say that. Said shall use up to. Get your facts straight before you go off on rants, it's beneath you, makes you look bad.

There is a squadron assigned to each CV, and an AirWing assigned to each squad. Ya, guess you missed that, clearly my bad. Then again, with Fencer interpreting rules that don't exist, it doesn't suprise me that bad advice was given and helped cause a last minute change. Clearly, I'm not blaming Filth.

I'm not blaming Filth for anything. I've spent the weekend reviewing logs, counting bombs, watching films and all the other fun stuff that happens when an event runs.

I've seen good and bad on both sides, Ive seen settings that didnt take and some really good plans that went bad.

Now, again, Take it up with your CO.

The CO brings issues to the design team, they are solved, agreed to, and move on. If you think I'm going to try and sit out here mucking through all the tirades and rants' your nuts. I've got work to do.

Bronk · « **Reply #36 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:16:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril

AND

I am honestly appalled that with all the controversy about the scenario's balance, the very first thing you say on these forums is to reflect blame on Filth.

No other discussion, no response to legitimate issues, even from disinterested parties lilke WIdewing.

I had expected a classier response.

Smaril he can't and won't make a case against widewing's post.
If he did wide would swamp him with verified facts that would make the team look foolish. So I really don't blame him for the no response.
Notice I didn't say the team are fools . They are just taking the precaution of not looking it.

What truly amazes me is the team didn't use people like Widewing as a resource. All you have to do is search his posts to know the man is a well of knowledge. If the team would just have drawn from it... There would have been much less controversy on what the capabilities were on both sides.

Bronk

ROC · « **Reply #37 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:26:44 AM »

Bronk, debate widewings post?

Wide is very knowledgeable, has some good points which I have read. I am spending my time reworking the event. Would you prefer I came in here and chewed fat with you? Or debated a post that, although has merit, was opened with the fact that he wasn't there?

It's a good opinion, but that's all it is, valid points yes, but an opinion, he wasn't there so cannot possibly know all of what happened.

What, exactly, would you like me to debate? That someone else could have built a different event? Gee, how brilliant you are. Imagine that, a scenario that Didn't Happen in real life, being recreated, and Someone coming up with a different way to run it.

You want me to debate That?

TequilaChaser · « **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:50:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ROC

You want me to debate That?

stepping in here, ROC!

I want you to work on the redesign, if it is even feasible, and I want you and the CM Staff and Doobs to talk FiLtH into at least staying the course thru the next Frame, Frame#2!!!

then go from there...........

Thank You

added: we got what 5 CVs left? and some AAF planes left too? right? well we are not actually beaten yet then are we?

why drop all this hard work after 1 beta Frame and the 1st True Frame? that is alot of wasted time if this thing was to not continue!!!

Fencer51 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:56:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ROC

Fencer, you posted in another thread quoting the rules, and said the US Team shall use N/7. Problem is, the rules didn't say that. Said shall use up to. Get your facts straight before you go off on rants, it's beneath you, makes you look bad.

There is a squadron assigned to each CV, and an AirWing assigned to each squad. Ya, guess you missed that, clearly my bad. Then again, with Fencer interpreting rules that don't exist, it doesn't suprise me that bad advice was given and helped cause a last minute change. Clearly, I'm not blaming Filth.

First of all, I haven't begun to rant. Trust me.

Man, this is enlightening. Now its my fault that you cannot write rules to match what you wanted. I wondered how you were justifying the interpertation of the rules you foisted upon Filth the middle of last week.

Quote

US Forces Available
US NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
ALLIED FLAGSHIP
TF85 - USS ENTERPRISE CV-6 (CUSTOM AIRWING - CO's Discretion as per ROC)
AMPHIB ASSAULT/INVASION DEFENSE
TF77 - USS INDEPENDENCE CVL-22 - Airwing 4 - Fighting 46
TF78 - USS LANGLEY CVL-28 - Airwing 4 - Fighting 23
TF79 - USS SANTEE CVE-29 - Airwing 3 - Marine Air Group 24
TF80 - USS SUWANNEE CVE-27 - Airwing 3 - Marine Air Group 40
TF81 - NO CV
TF82 - NO CV
TASK FORCES
TF89 - USS WASP CV-18 - Airwing 1 - Fighting 86
TF90 - USS HORNET CV-12 - Airwing 3 - Fighting 17
TF91 - USS INTREPID CV-11 - Airwing 3 - Fighting 10
TF92 - USS BELLEAU WOOD CV-24 - Airwing 4 - Fighting 30
TF93 - USS SAN JACINTO CVL-30 - Airwing 4 - Fighting 45
TF94 - HMS IMPLACABLE - Airwing 3 - Fighting 5
TF95 - USS RANDOLPH CV-15 - Airwing 3 - Fighting 12
TF96 - USS ESSEX CV-9 - Airwing 4 - Fighting 83
TF97 - USS BUNKER HILL CV-17 - Airwing 4 - Fighting 84
TF98 - USS HANCOCK CV-19 - Airwing 4 - Fighting 6
TF99 - USS YORKTOWN CV-10 - Airwing 2 - Fighting 9
USAAF AirField A88-AirSpawn NE to sector 10-4
3rd FS, 3rd FG, 5th AF - P51D Primary
431FS, 475th FG, 5th AF-P38L Primary
34th FS, 413 FG, 5th AF - P47N Secondary
19th BS, 22nd BG, 5 AF - B24J Primary
Air wing Descrip:
Airwing 1:
F4U-4 - Primary
FM2
SBD-5
TBM-3
PT Boat
Airwing 2:
F4U-1C Primary
FM2
SBD-5
TBM-3
PT Boat
Airwing 3:
F4U-1D Primary
FM2
SBD-5
TBM-3
PT Boat
Airwing 4:
F6F-5 Primary
FM2
SBD-5
TBM-3
PT Boat
USAAF Planes Must AirSpawn North East. This Air Group will be limited to 1 Squadron of P-51, One Squadron of P-38 and One Squadron of B24. Each Pilot who Successfully Lands at A88 after their mission may Re Launch from A-88 in the same plane type. All those pilots who fail to land successfully MUST re-up in P-47. This includes the Bomber Pilots.
The number of pilots who can be in each unit is as follows, assuming total number of registered players on US side is N. Each airwing can have up to N/7 pilots. 3rd FS, 431st FS, and 19th BS each can have up to N/7 pilots. The 34th FS has no pilots assigned to it initially -- pilots in this group (with P-47N's) are the ones from 3rd FS, 431st FS, and 19th BS who fail to return in their primary rides.

The AirWing by your written description is the basic unit as to which the US and the Japanese must base it’s personnel allocation. It sure is on the Japanese side, why is it now different on the US side?

“Each airwing can have up to N/7 pilots” sounds like a choice the US CO has as to what he allocates. There are 8 different airwings on the US side. So the US CO should have had the option to shift his men as he saw fit. So, what is wrong with my description in the other tread? You identified which CVs each AW could use. Just like bases for the Japanese.

However as we both know, you changed this and made us crew each CV equally to ensure leadership for the hundreds of walkons that you expected. Least that was the reason I was told it was done.

1ijac · « **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2006, 12:00:24 PM »

I'll second that motion TC.

ROC · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2006, 12:03:46 PM »

TC, I started reworking the event 2 hours into frame 1 lol

Bronk · « **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2006, 12:38:48 PM »

BIG edit...

Roc I would like to apologize to you for this post.

I am quite sure you are looking for fixes and you had the best of intentions for the scenario. I let my self get way out of line with the edited comment.

Please except my apology.

Bronk

ROC · « **Reply #43 on:** July 25, 2006, 11:05:22 AM »

Oh man, you edited it before I got to See It??

Its all good bud, I would never enjoy an event that was populated with spineless dweebs. Nothing makes an event more enjoyable that passionate people attending it. If you did not care enough about your event to fight over it, then there would be little interest in building them

All it does is tell me that there are people who really want the events to work, and keeps us coming back wanting each one to be better.

Thank you, but no apology needed, expected, nor required.

Bronk · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2006, 01:47:53 PM »

Roc you have a PM.

Bronk